Standing Committee B

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Clause 26 - Penalties under Chapter 1: general

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 96, in 
clause 26, page 17, line 25, at end insert, 
 'A Waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. Failure on behalf of the waste disposal authority to comply will result in a penalty as set down in Clause 9'.—[Mr. Barker.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 45—Directions to waste disposal authorities—
'(1) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. 
 (2) Any waste disposal authority which receives such a direction shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure it is complied with within 12 months of the issuing of the direction. 
 (3) A waste collection authority issuing a direction under subsection (1) above shall pay to a waste disposal authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the disposal authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with the direction.'.

John Hayes: It is a great delight, Mr. Amess, to see you in the Chair after your Easter sojourn when we were, happily, able to spend a little time together.
 We have been discussing the vital relationship between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities, and the need for them to work collaboratively to meet the targets set in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) spoke with his customary eloquence and not a little charm—hon. Members can tell that I have had a good lunch—about the importance of that relationship and the real danger if it breaks down. There may be good collection authorities in areas where disposal authorities are less than up to the mark, and vice versa. Consequently, unless both commit to meeting the targets in a co-operative way, either could fall down through no fault of its own. 
 The situation is complicated by the fact that within a disposal authority's purview there will be collection authorities with a variety of profiles. My hon. Friend spoke about a typical county council. I accept that not all authorities are two tier; there is a multiplicity of arrangements. However, let us consider a two-tier authority in which a county is working with a variety of districts that are responsibly and sensibly collecting 
 waste to meet the Bill's requirements, but in which the disposal authority is not up to speed. There will be a major disincentive for collection authorities and their householders to change their culture to adopt new, healthy practices if they know that the disposal authority will end up burning everything. That could be a problem for collection authorities that do their jobs well and aim to do them even better. 
 The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) drew attention to innovative and imaginative work that is taking place in some of the best collection authorities. He implied that they would be disincentivised and demoralised if they felt that their work was not matched by the disposal authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, it works both ways.

Gregory Barker: I want to expand on the point about disincentives to collecting authorities as a result of incineration by disposal authorities. Cynical voters perennially make the point to collection authorities that it is no good collecting things to recycle if there is no market for them. The market will not develop if recyclables are not properly sorted or are incinerated. Until we get critical mass in the market, we will not see people recycling in the numbers that we would like.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend knows that I am not the greatest enthusiast for market economics, but I am a former business man so I understand the importance of ensuring that there is an economic incentive. If people are to feel that their work is worth while, there has to be a policed approach between the collection and disposal authorities and all others involved in the partnership, which may include the private sector, householders and all those who care about or are involved in dealing with waste.
 I was about to speak of the need for the relationship to work both ways, although that is not unrelated to what my hon. Friend said, because there may be recalcitrant collection authorities in a disposal authority area. If the disposal authority is obliged to bring itself up to the standards of the best, it would be awkward if it had to work with collection authorities that were not doing their bit. It is a two-way relationship, and all parties need to be responsible. 
 My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that duality is recognised in new clause 45 because of the financial link between the collection and disposal authorities, and the obligation for disposal authorities to deal with waste properly once the collection authority has taken the necessary steps to collect it, sort it and pass it on in an acceptable form. That is what underpins the amendment and new clause 45. They are helpful in cementing the relationship between the different elements in the strategy. They are essential to ensuring that everyone who commits to the strategy embodied in the Bill believes that they are being treated with fairness. 
 My worst-case scenario is of some collection or disposal authorities being committed to implementing the strategy properly while others are not, because the result will be that the activities of the best are diminished or diluted by the standards of the worst. 
 The Minister will probably say that the targets that we set for all authorities will mitigate that to some extent, but in the initial stages, while people are finding their feet, it will be necessary to cement those relationships in order to emphasise their importance.

Norman Baker: Clause 31 enables disposal authorities to deal with recalcitrant collection authorities; that power is already available. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the amendment would give collection authorities the power to deal with slipshod disposal authorities? That symmetry is currently missing from the Bill.

John Hayes: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman, who has miraculously been transformed from a poodle into a terrier during our proceedings—

Norman Baker: Was I a poodle?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may not be a thoroughbred terrier, but he is a terrier none the less. He made a good point this morning. I make no judgment about this, but it is worth restating that he believes that collection authorities are typically rather more advanced than disposal authorities. I accept that the picture is patchy, and that one should not be too simplistic about it, but it is at the collection end of the process that most advances have been made.
 The best collection authorities are already doing things rather well. Unfortunately, they are not to be found everywhere, and they are certainly not the norm, but they do exist and they are leading the way. However, the hon. Gentleman implied, not unreasonably, that we may have dragged our feet a little more over disposal, and the Bill does not give collection authorities that are doing the job well adequate power or legislative influence over disposal authorities. 
 That is a good point; such a balance is a prerequisite for the partnership that I described. Both kinds of authority must feel that they have teeth; both are answerable for the stiff targets and both will have the Minister looming over them with his typical kindly vehemence. It is therefore only right that they should have at their disposal mechanisms to ensure that an authority that ought to be a partner does not undermine their work. That is the purpose of the amendment, which new clause 45 reinforces in a fuller form. The amendment adds to the Bill in a positive way, and I move it in that spirit.

David Amess: Order. The amendment has been moved.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I did not mean to move the amendment. It has already been moved, but I was so beguiled by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle that I was put off my stride.

Michael Meacher: I begin to think of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) as a golden retriever, although we had better get out of the habit of associating each other with categories of dog.
 We return, inevitably, to the issue of incineration, although it now appears in a rather different guise. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle persuasively expressed his concern about constituents whose collection authorities have some influence or control over the destination of collected materials. I understand that point, and the hon. Gentleman was strongly supported by the hon. Members for Lewes and for South Holland and The Deepings. I sympathise with the aim of the amendment, but the question is whether it is the right way to achieve the objective. I do not accept what was said a few moments ago about symmetry because I do not think that the relationship between collection and disposal authorities is symmetrical. 
 The amendment and new clause 45 seek to give collection authorities a power to direct. The key point is that a disposal authority should not use incineration to dispose of the waste that is delivered. We have dealt with that issue, and I shall not go over it again. We are all agreed that incineration is and should be a long way down the waste hierarchy. Our waste strategy, in which the landscape of waste management is set out, makes it explicit from the first that waste minimisation, reuse, recycling and composting are, in that order, the preferred options for dealing with waste. 
 We cannot, however, escape the fact that increases in waste minimisation and recycling alone cannot achieve the landfill directive target, no matter how much every member of the Committee, including me, may wish that they could. Giving collection authorities the power to rule out incineration without regard to the adequacy of alternatives is therefore stretching things. Whether we like it or not, some incineration will be necessary. Indeed, some forms of waste incineration can be the best practical and environmental option; for example, burning clinical waste. We have talked about soiled bandages, which are of course not appropriate for composting and need to be destroyed. 
 As I said, the relationship between collection and disposal authorities is not symmetrical. The Bill gives powers to a disposal authority to direct a collection authority on the form in which waste is delivered so that it can carry out its proper role in meeting the landfill directive. However, there is no reciprocity in that relationship. It would be wrong to give the collection authority as absolute a power as the amendment suggests. That could produce significant difficulties for the disposal authority in carrying out its duties. 
 However, I am sympathetic to the aim of the amendment. The question is whether giving a power to direct is the right way to proceed. If a collection authority is concerned about sending its waste for incineration, for reasons that I totally understand, the time for it to address the issue with the appropriate disposal authority is when the authorities develop their joint municipal waste management strategy. I appreciate that there is no guarantee that what both parties want will be achieved, and there might be political acrimony between them, but I believe that that occurs only in a minority of cases. We should rely 
 on that co-operation in the first instance. The only question, then, is whether there should be a power to enforce an agreement in certain cases, and I do not think that it would be right.

Norman Baker: Even in the absence of acrimony, waste collection and waste disposal authorities might be in dispute over what should be done with the waste. For example, the waste disposal authority might take the view that it is necessary to construct a large incinerator because it anticipates that its waste will increase by 6 or 7 per cent. and the alternative would be to ship it by lorry to a landfill site the other side of the country. In order to do that, it would have to sign a contract with a waste contractor. That, in turn, would require a great deal of material to be fed into the incinerator, and that would undermine the recycling market. The waste collection authority might be operating a number of important and effective voluntary-organisation or locality-based schemes that would have to close down in order to provide the waste stream that the waste disposal authority wanted. I appreciate that that is not the Government's intention or their policy, but that is the possible outcome unless waste collection authorities have some means of protecting the schemes that are in line with what the Government want.

Michael Meacher: I was about to suggest that. They have a degree of power in their own hands. Waste collection authorities play an active role in waste management. The amount of waste that a collection authority delivers to a disposal authority for disposal is under the control of the collection authority. If it does not want its waste to be incinerated, it should do everything possible to ensure that it recycles or composts it. The less waste there is to go to the disposal authority, the less is likely to be incinerated. A disposal authority will only dispose of residual waste, so recycling will mean less waste to dispose of.

Norman Baker: I refer the Minister to clause 31(2). Unless I have misunderstood it—in which case it should be clarified—it makes an important point in that it says that a waste collection authority that is not also a waste disposal authority must discharge its duty in accordance with any direction about separation of waste given by the waste disposal authority for its area. Going by what the Minister has said, the key question is whether the power of direction for the waste disposal authority only kicks in with residual waste after recyclables have been removed, or whether it has the ability to give directions about the waste before that point.

Michael Meacher: Clearly, clause 31(2) says:
''A waste collection authority . . . must discharge its duty . . . in accordance with any directions about separation of waste given by the waste disposal authority for its area.''
 It means what it says. It gives directions about the separation of waste. It does not say anything about the amount of waste. It mentions residual waste so, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the residual waste has to be separated in the way that the waste disposal authority says. The waste disposal authority cannot say that it does not want another body to 
 recycle—it wants all its waste to arrive in a form that is appropriate for a large incinerator. The waste collection authority has power to thwart the feeding of a large incinerator by high levels of recycling.

Gregory Barker: What about the case in which a collection authority is separating the waste stream in a more sophisticated way than the disposal authority is able or willing to cope with? What happens if the former creates several streams, but the latter cannot or will not handle more than one or two?

Michael Meacher: Clause 31(2) states that a waste collection authority must discharge its duty in accordance with any directions about the separation of waste. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by a ''more sophisticated'' way of separation. However, if it was inappropriate for the waste disposal authority to be able to deal with it in that form, it would be able to give a power of direction as to the manner in which it was separated, hopefully after discussions, negotiations and attempts at conciliation and agreement.

John Hayes: The issue is the nature of the relationships within local authorities. The Minister is right to say that it is important that the disposal authority has the power under clause 31 to require the collection authority to deliver the waste in a proper way. I would not argue for symmetry. I did not use the word symmetry; I used the word balance. The hon. Member for Lewes used the word symmetry. They are quite different words. Reciprocity is certainly different from symmetry. The question relating to balance is, if a collection authority is doing its job well, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle implied, what about the recalcitrant disposal authority that then frustrates that good work by not handling the waste in an appropriate manner? What power does the collection authority have?

Michael Meacher: The collection authority has the power to ensure that there are high levels of recovery, recycling and composting so that the amount of waste that is handed over is pretty small, and probably too small to feed a large incinerator. That is a very strong power. All that the waste disposal authority can do is lay down the manner in which the separation of waste should be undertaken; it cannot control the amount of waste. Therefore, the collection authority has it in its own hands to deal with that matter.

John Hayes: With respect, that is a sophisticated counter-argument, but it is not ultimately a persuasive one. The reason why it is sophisticated but not persuasive is that what the Minister is saying in bread-and-butter terms is that the collection authority's real power lies within itself. It is not a power over the disposal authority; it is a power born of its own performance. Therefore, if it does its job to the best degree, the problem would, at least, be minimised.
 The Minister is not answering the question about what happens to the remainder of cases. Once the waste collection authority has done its job and the waste goes to the disposal authority, if the disposal authority is performing extraordinarily badly there is no power over that disposal authority on the part of the collection authority. That is not a balanced 
 relationship; it is a one-way relationship with the collection authority's only power lying in its own performance. The disposal authority has extensive powers over the collection authority, regardless of its own performance. That is the imbalance that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and the hon. Member for Lewes drew to the Committee's attention.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is making a meal out of this. First, the waste collection authority can control the situation to a very high degree by high levels of recycling, recovery and composting. The powers of the disposal authority to control the waste collection authority and what it does in its collection are therefore pretty small.
 The other point that I wish to stress is that there is an erroneous assumption in this debate that there is head-to-head hostility between disposal and collection authorities. There are 148 waste disposal authorities, so I expect that probably only the bottom 10 per cent. in terms of co-operativeness have a hostile relationship. In the great majority of cases, that problem should not arise. I expect the disposal and collection authorities to discuss in detail what each expects of the other in the preparation of joint waste management strategies. It is not a question of whether the waste disposal authority acts badly or does not act well. Those authorities have their own targets that they must meet. They are constrained; they cannot accept waste from the collection authority and just do what they like. They have to act in accordance with waste management strategies that meet the Government's overall objectives. There are constraints and parameters. I think that the hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily worried.

Norman Baker: I hope that my worry is unnecessary, but I am worried. A moment ago, the Minister said—I want to be sure that I am correct—that the power of waste disposal authorities to direct waste collection authorities, given by clause 31, which is related to what we are discussing now, covers only residual waste, and that that excludes recyclable waste.
 The definition of waste includes recyclables, however, because waste collection authorities collect everything and then recycle what they can. First, it is waste; it may be recycled, but it is initially waste. We have two definitions of waste—first, what is collected, which is everything; and the Minister's narrower definition of waste, which is waste that has not been recycled or reused. That is an important point. If I am right, proposed new subsection 1A in clause 31(2) means that waste disposal authorities can give directions about separation of waste only in the narrower definition, excluding recyclables. That is not what I understood. 
 If the Minister's view is correct, however, there is a further problem. It is that a waste disposal authority could sign a 25-year contract for an incinerator—that is how long such contracts usually last—and it will be based on expected arisings of waste over the period. If the Minister's interpretation is correct, waste collection authorities may substantially increase their recycling under such innovative schemes. If they 
 increase their recycling beyond all expectations, there will be no waste stream for the incinerator. If there is no waste stream for the incinerator under the Minister's definition of waste under clause 31, the waste disposal authority cannot require there to be a stream of waste because it will have been recycled. 
 The consequence will be that the waste disposal authority will have a contract with the incinerator and a waste stream for it; but there will be no waste stream, because the waste collection authorities will have upped their recycling of waste. There will be a shortfall in what the waste disposal authority requires. The only option will be to pay a penalty to the contractor for the incinerator because it is unable to deliver as much waste as was promised. The alternative scenario is to import waste from outside the waste disposal authority area to be incinerated. In other words, those collection authorities who decide significantly to up their recycling of waste will pay the penalty of having extra transport movements into their area to feed an incinerator for which they could have provided waste themselves.

Michael Meacher: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a significant point, but I am glad to say that his worries and anxieties are misplaced. It is true that the collection authority collects waste, and that that includes recyclables. However, recyclables can be recycled; and if they are recycled, they are not residual waste to be handed on to the disposal authority.
 Clause 31 amends section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 48 is entitled: 
''Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected''.
 It states: 
''The duty imposed on a waste collection authority by subsection (1) above does not . . . apply as respects household waste or commercial waste for which the authority decides to make arrangements for recycling the waste''.
 That is the key point. The fear is that a disposal authority may be hell-bent on incineration—God forbid that there should be many of those—but it cannot pervert its relationship with the collection authority in order to feed the incinerator for the next 25 years. As I say, it is an important point. Those who fear that we are going down the incineration route should understand the limits on those who decide to invest in incineration: they are greater than many realise.

Gregory Barker: Certainly in my mind, and perhaps in others, there is some confusion. Where does the Minister think that the boundary lies between disposal and collection authorities in relation to responsibility for separating recyclables? In East Sussex, the disposal authority, which is responsible for extracting recyclables, separates part of the waste stream. A plant in my constituency has a pellet-making facility and an ordinary waste collection facility side by side, both operated by the disposal authority. There is a greater onus on the disposal authority to make arrangements for separation than the Minister seems to indicate.

Michael Meacher: I do not think that that is so. I repeat the argument that it is for a collection authority, such as that described by the hon. Gentleman, that wishes to recycle as much of its recyclable waste as possible to ensure that it does so and that all that it hands on to the disposal authority is the residual waste. Under clause 31, which amends section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the disposal authority has the power to set down the basis on which the residual waste is separated in order for it to fulfil its proper function. The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded.

John Hayes: I acknowledge that that authority exists in the Bill. There is no opportunity for financial penalties to be imposed. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the disposal authority is there to penalise the collection authority if it does not separate waste. I acknowledge that, too. I do not think that it is part of the Minister's plan. Although the disposal authority would have no fiscal sanction against the collection authority, some disposal authorities want that to be so. I have mentioned a letter from a disposal authority to one of my hon. Friends, making that very point.
 If balance is to be achieved through a partnership approach—in most cases that will happen in the way that the Minister describes, and we are dealing not with the mainstream but with the margin—we need to look again at how a collection authority can ultimately introduce some sanction against a disposal authority. I do not seek symmetry; I am just looking for some power to be given to collection authorities that do a good job that is not matched by neighbouring disposal authorities.

Michael Meacher: Unless the amendment is accepted, there is no proposal or measure that would give a collection authority a sanction against a disposal authority as that is not necessary, first, because the collection authority can structure the situation through high levels of recycling and, secondly—perhaps I have not emphasised things enough—because the disposal authority has recycling targets too. The Committee is in agreement that, once the 25 per cent. national average recycling target for 2005–06 has been met, the Government should continue the upward pressure that applies not just to collection authorities, but to disposal authorities.
 Disposal authorities, not collection authorities, run civic amenity sites where recycling takes place. They will be subject to Government pressure to increase recycling, which is another reason why they will not be able to say that they cannot recycle because they are feeding an incinerator. The opposite applies, too—the Government insist that the recycling targets must be met. If, residually, it is possible to run a small incinerator, we shall not absolutely forbid it, but it will be difficult.

Norman Baker: I hear what the Minister says, but it would be helpful to have the word ''residual'' in front of ''waste'' in clause 31. A waste disposal authority might build an incinerator with a particular capacity as part of its waste plan, but the waste collection authorities that perform well in collection and
 recycling could reduce the stream going to the incinerator. In such circumstances, there might not be enough waste to meet the contracted amount for the incinerator. What would the waste disposal authority do then? The authority would have to either pay the penalty, which would leave the taxpayer worse off as compensation would have to be paid to the incinerator operator, or import waste from outside the area to feed the incinerator. I do not want to see either solution. Increasing recycling has a downside in both senses.

Michael Meacher: If a waste disposal authority knows the responsibilities that the Bill sets out for collection and disposal authorities, knows the constraints imposed by the need for a sufficient supply of materials to feed the incinerator, knows that collection authorities can limit the supply of residual waste and knows that the disposal authority is subject to recycling targets that, as the Government have made perfectly clear, will be increased, and yet is imprudent enough to sign up to a 25-year contract, it must accept the consequences. That might mean making a payment to the operator—I do not know what it will be—but it is not a matter for the Government. The Government's role is to set out the framework of incentives and penalties, and to leave players on the ground to act in ways that they feel are appropriate.
Several hon. Members rose—

Michael Meacher: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

Alan Whitehead: I hope that my right hon. Friend will write to me about my point, because I do not anticipate him supplying an immediate thought on the matter. My understanding of section 48(4) of the 1990 Act is the opposite way round—namely, that where a waste disposal authority has contracted to recycle any waste, that authority can serve a notice on the waste collection authority objecting to it having the waste recycled. Subsection (4) goes on to say that
''the objection may be made as respects all the waste, part only of the waste or specified descriptions of the waste.''
 It therefore appears that under at least one interpretation of section 48 the trump card is in the hand of waste disposal authorities and not in the hand of the waste collection authorities, although I might have misunderstood.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend, with his customary grace, is saying that I might need to look further into the matter, and he is entirely correct. I do not have the 1990 Act before me, but what he says is contrary to the advice that I have received. However, he has raised an important point that is relevant to the discussion, and I shall either reply later or write to him and all members of the Committee.

David Drew: From all I can hear, the discussion is a wonderful advertisement for unitary authorities more than anything, as we could get away from all the nonsense about one authority dumping on another. Notwithstanding that, there might be an uneven partnership. Does my right hon. Friend agree
 that the rationale for having waste collection and disposal in the hands of the local authority is that the electorate will have a view on it?
 I would expect the electorate to consider carefully any administration that tied the people of an area to a universally unpopular waste process for 25 years. The consequences of an administration doing so would be quite interesting. I do not know whether that point is a cry from the heart for local government, but it is a strong reason why what has been described is unlikely to happen. If it did happen, the consequences would be only too obvious.

Michael Meacher: That is a further point and an important one. Everyone knows that public opinion has been moving strongly against incineration for the past few years. The scenario that we have been discussing of a waste disposal authority—an elected body—being so hell bent on incineration in defiance of public opinion and forcing the local authority to abide by its instruction is, as my hon. Friend argues powerfully, very unlikely.

Gregory Barker: We have had thoughtful and worthwhile debates in the morning and afternoon sittings. I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to answer so many of the points that have been raised in interventions. What has undoubtedly been unearthed by this discussion is the fact that the current state of affairs, however seriously one views it, in the relationship between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities is unsatisfactory.
 The big issue is whether one regards that state of affairs as unsatisfactory, but acceptably so, while hoping that the authorities will somehow muddle through or whether one has a rather higher ambition for the arrangement and is determined to force through greater change. We must not only hope for that change, but will the means by which it can be achieved by putting more teeth in the Bill. That would make the legislation more effective, which would create the change in the waste regime that we all want to see. Here, yet again, is an opportunity to put aside platitudes and take the Bill further towards the holistic waste management view that Conservative Members want, rather than the narrowly defined legislation that the Minister is piloting through the House. 
 Good points have been made from all parts of the Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes spoke well on the proximity principle and how it is being flouted due to the lack of proper co-operation between disposal and collection authorities. He also said that the collectors are more green than the disposal authorities. That point was picked up by the hon. Member for Stroud, and there is a reason for it: the voters interact with waste at the district and collection levels. 
 Where recycling is introduced it is universal, whereas incineration is invariably a local issue that mostly concerns people who live in close proximity to the facility. Those who live far from it—in large county areas, people might live a very long way off—
 are necessarily less worried by it. Disposal, by its nature, is hidden from the public, whereas every voter and every household deals with collection on a daily basis. It is not surprising that collection should be higher in the voters' minds than disposal, unless the disposal problem lands right in their neighbourhood.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right about the direct relationship he describes, which may well have an impact on performance, but I do not think that he would want to give the impression that all waste disposal authorities are unable to recognise the fact that they have a public duty. Many waste disposal authorities do a very good job, and we are speaking about the margins. Waste disposal authorities are rightly concerned about having the correct powers to deal with recalcitrant collection authorities. This is a matter of balance. I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to endorse that, and perhaps talk a little about the difference between symmetry and balance.

Gregory Barker: I must decline my hon. Friend's invitation to deliver a trigonometry lecture, but I wholeheartedly agree with his analysis. He is absolutely right. I am concerned with the few waste disposal authorities that do not work well with the collection authorities. It must be said that, as a nation, we must do better.
 We cannot be satisfied with the level of recycling or our disposal practices. We need a complete step change, so I am in no way complacent about even the best being good enough. We have a very long way to go, which is why we keep returning to the problem that the Bill is not sufficiently ambitious, given the scale of the problem that we are confronting. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke extensively, with his usual idiosyncratic charm and eloquence. In particular, he returned to the point that we need an enforceable holistic approach, which must be backed by meaningful powers in the Bill—with stick as well as carrot. 
 The only attempts to achieve balance and fairness have come from this side of the Committee—similar amendments have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats—and the two are at the heart of our objectives, matched by high ambitions for the future. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test made the knockout observation that, under the current regime, the trump card is always in the hands of the waste disposal authority. That is our everyday experience in constituencies and counties, and it is the obvious conclusion that one reaches on reading the regulations. 
 This is the final afternoon of our deliberations. It is our one opportunity to redress the balance and to send a clear message from Westminster to our colleagues in the country that we would like to be far more ambitious. We are not prepared merely to offer sympathy and moral support; we want to go a long way towards arming collection authorities with the tools that they need to enforce a better disposal regime. If I may misquote the bard, the road to the great incinerator is paved with good intentions. There is no doubting Ministers' good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. This is our only 
 opportunity to give this part of the Bill the teeth that it requires, and I appeal to Labour Members to listen to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and join us in our effort to do so.

Michael Meacher: I find it difficult to resist the hon. Gentleman's meretricious blandishments. Without going over all the details of our lengthy debate, I repeat first that the collection authority can avoid the consequence that he described by achieving high levels of recycling; secondly, that the matter should not arise if joint waste management strategies work in the way that we intend; thirdly, that disposal authorities have their own recycling targets, particularly at civic amenity sites; and fourthly that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, incineration is unpopular.
 I now have an answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. A disposal authority can object to a collection authority's recycling, but only if the disposal authority has made arrangements for recycling, not if it has made arrangements for incineration. My hon. Friend shows a remarkable range of understanding and application in looking at an earlier Act, but his original point is not right. Contrary to the impression that may have been given, disposal authorities are not in a position to subvert the intention of the Government and all members of this Committee. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, although he intends to press the amendment to a vote, will concede that the arguments are against it.

Norman Baker: May I pursue that point for a moment? As I understand it, the Minister said that under the 1990 Act, disposal authorities can give instructions to collection authorities to change the method of recycling. I recall that earlier we concluded that collection authorities that were told by disposal authorities to change their practices would be subject to compensation if they found themselves out of pocket. If that is so, does the new provision supersede the 1990 Act or will it have to exist in parallel with it?

Michael Meacher: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's recollection is correct. We envisage that a disposal authority will be able to take steps to change a collection authority's custom and practice over recycling, but only where the disposal authority itself undertakes a certain level of recycling, and not as a way of substituting recycling for incineration. That is the key point. In the circumstances that we are talking about here no case can be made for compensation for the collection authority as a result of any such action by the disposal authority.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Regulations under Chapter 1: consultation

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 27, page 17, leave out lines 42 to 44.
 This debate will be rather shorter than the previous one. I simply seek from the Government a statement on their policy on consultation. The Minister will know that we raised the issue earlier when I praised his Department's brave stand in resisting the Cabinet Office guidance and ploughing its own furrow. 
 The Bill gives the allocating authority—the Secretary of State in the case of England—the power not to consult if it concludes that those who might otherwise be affected will not, in a specific case, be affected by regulations that the Government want to amend. That seems quite reasonable, and I do not wish to demur from it. However, I have concerns. First, the analysis of whether an interest will be affected is rather subjective. The allocating authority may genuinely conclude that individuals are not affected, but those individuals may conclude that they are affected. We would find out the truth only once the regulation had been changed. That is not a happy state of affairs, and it is not how consultation should work. 
 There is also a potential legal problem. The Minister will be only too aware that there have been various legal judgments relating to consultation, not least that concerning the airports paper in which Gatwick was not included as a possible location for a new runway. The Government had to rerun that entire exercise. I am not sure whether that was right, but that was the judgment that was reached. 
 Clearly there is a legal aspect to consultation. I do not want to see a situation in which every single person is consulted about every single matter, and on the face of it the clause is quite reasonable, but I have two concerns about it. The first is that the legal framework in case law requires more consultation than the Government may be used to carrying out. Secondly, the interpretation of who is affected may mean that those who are genuinely affected are not consulted and find out about a change after it has been made.

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment relates to the requirement for allocating authorities to consult before making regulations. It would require them to consult bodies and persons representative of the interests of disposal authorities or of the operation of landfills in its area, even if those interests were not affected by the regulations. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that may not automatically be clear.
 Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage cases in which the interests of disposal authorities or landfill operators may not be affected by the regulations covered in this part of the Bill. For example, there would be no need to consult landfill operators on regulations made under clause 25, because those would alter penalties that did not affect them. Equally, there 
 would be no need to consult disposal authorities on regulations made under clause 13 about the powers to inspect records held by landfill operators. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to carry out comprehensive consultation on all regulations. 
 If I may be permitted to say to, I sometimes think that one of the Government's problems is consultation-itis. We consult not once but two or even three times. I therefore think it odd to be chastised for not allowing for adequate consultation. It would be a waste of time and resources to require allocating authorities to consult interest groups if the interests of those groups were not affected. There will be the fullest consultation, but it is common sense to restrict it to those groups that are directly affected. That is the basic position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it and withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: Of course I accept that is reasonable to consult only those who are affected. The amendment was probing, but the Minister has not answered two of the points that I raised: perhaps I did not express myself clearly.
 The test of whether an individual or a body is affected is subjective, and I am slightly unhappy with the wording. The individual using the test to decide who to consult might get it wrong. The Minister gave a clear indication of when consultation would be ludicrous, and I accept that, but I am concerned about the grey areas—perhaps a minority of cases—where it will not be clear who should be consulted. 
 I suggested that the Minister may want to reflect on the proposed consultation in light of recent court judgments. I am not in favour of more consultation, for the reasons given by the Minister. However, I recognise that out in the big wide world are people who take legal action, defending their case on the basis that they were not consulted. That can slow things down, as happened with the Gatwick airport consultation. I am not arguing for more consultation; I am trying to make the system work properly. I shall happily withdraw the amendment, but those were my questions.

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman has said the magic words, I am sure that the Whip will not want me to speak for long.
 I thought that I had answered the point. As in any consultation, an assessment has to be made of who are the relevant interests. Whoever is arranging a consultation has to exercise judgment, and we cannot regulate that through legislation. Ministers or officials may occasionally get it wrong, and people may sometimes be left out. The Gatwick case was rather significant; it went to the High Court, and the judge ruled against the Government. However, it was an unusual and rather special case. 
 Officials who consult about regulations—it is nearly always officials who conduct such consultation—go over the top, and send papers to everyone who might conceivably have an interest. I often ask for lists of consultees, and I am amazed that many of them 
 include 50 or 60 organisations, rather than the expected 20. If anything, Governments err on the side of excess, rather than the reverse. 
 I do not see how one can take account of a subjective test in drawing up legislation or make a general rule in legislation to avoid possible subjectivity at the margins. I take the hon. Gentleman's point and understand his arguments, but he is unduly concerned. I hope that I have given him some reassurance.

Norman Baker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 28 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Directions to waste collection

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in
clause 31, page 20, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In section 45 (collection of controlled waste), subsection (3) (charges) shall be omitted.'.
 A little while ago, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned his interest in Marx, so I am sure that he will be familiar with the tootsie-frootsie ice-cream sketch in the Marx brothers film ''A Day at the Races'', in which Groucho Marx has to buy many different form books to find out which horse will win the race that he has a tip on. Amendment No. 71 is something like that, in that it is necessary to go through several documents to understand what it is about. It refers to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to the Bill and then back to the amendment paper. 
 In essence, the amendment is simple and modest. It would switch off a section in the 1990 Act that specifically prohibits local authorities charging to collect household waste. That provision was based on the logic that the householder could put as much waste as they liked outside their front door and, because they paid their poll tax or council tax, the local authority would be required to collect it. At that stage, there was no consideration of a waste hierarchy or minimisation, so the quantity of waste that the householder placed outside their door was not an issue. 
 We are talking in a rather different vein today. We are debating how waste collection authorities could deliver waste to disposal authorities in a form suitable for recycling, and we have talked several times about what we might call the holy grail of waste hierarchy—the idea of waste minimisation. The important point about the present situation under the 1990 Act is that the waste collection authority has little leverage, other than exhortation, in delivering waste in a form that the waste disposal authority may work on. 
 The suggestion made by the amendment is that by simply switching off the relevant section, the local authority could have available to it—if it wanted and 
 after a debate with its local citizens—the leverage to enable it to undertake its part of the bargain contained in the provisions of the Bill. The amendment says that if we are following the Bill's logic, it is also logical for the local authority to have the wherewithal to enable it to take a part in the process set out in the Bill. It would provide a rights-and-responsibilities arrangement for waste collection and waste disposal authorities. 
 The point about switching off the relevant provision in the EPA is not that a local authority would be forced to charge an amount of money in addition to what was set out in the council tax bill. The point is that a prohibition on any method, however imaginative, of variable charging, rebate charging or incentives for minimisation appears to lie in the EPA as it stands. Switching off that provision would allow a local authority to undertake those imaginative ways of encouraging people to put their waste out so that it could be processed, or to put less waste out in the first place. That would be the logical consequence. 
 There are a number of practical examples of how the process works, not in this country but elsewhere in Europe. In Milan, there was an arrangement that involved a fixed charge for collecting waste overall, but a variable charge on residual—non-biodegradable—waste. That produced an immediate 18 per cent. reduction in the amount of residual waste put out. In Sweden, a similar arrangement produced a much larger reduction of 45 per cent. That system appears to have a real empirical impact; it works. 
 There are potential political problems, inasmuch as if one simply charged everyone double for collecting waste, that would be seen as an additional tax on waste collection. As we have discussed in relation to incineration, the relationship that a local authority has with its population means that it is unlikely that such an arrangement could come into play at local level. However, a system of variable charging, with incentives such as a rebate if someone produced a smaller amount of waste or if their waste was fully sorted, could be popular at local level, provided it was well explained and understood. Such a system would have a marked effect. It would complete the circle of arrangements that we have discussed today and at other times. I am talking about how we make the system work fully in terms of trading, delivery of waste and the relationship between waste collection and waste disposal authorities. 
 To save on any suspense, let me say that I anticipate that the amendment will be received with interest, but not necessarily acclaim, so I shall not press it to a vote. However, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to indicate whether he thinks that something along these lines might be a way of completing the circle, whether further work should be done on considering how that might work and whether, in relation to the Bill in operation, it may be a good idea to look again at the EPA and the assumptions behind it on waste collection.

Paddy Tipping: We often say in Committee that we have produced probing amendments, but this is a prodding amendment. It is designed to raise the profile of variable charging. My right hon. Friend the Minister is interested in that
 issue, but there is a great disinclination across the rest of Government to consider it. In political terms it appears to be a no-no, an issue that is not even worth debating. The purpose of debating the amendment is just to cover the ground a little.
 The cost of waste collection and disposal in this country does not reflect the true prices. We can consider international comparisons. The amount spent on waste collection and disposal in the UK is very low compared with other European countries. In that sense, we are getting something for nothing. We are producing waste and paying for it, but not at its proper cost, through council tax.

John Hayes: I wonder whether I can prod the hon. Gentleman further. Would he go as far as to say that this comes on top of several unfunded additional statutory responsibilities on local authorities? He and I enjoyed our time together on Nottinghamshire county council, and we are both doughty defenders of local democracy. Is it not part of an emerging pattern of further statutory responsibilities that are unfunded but which create considerable burdens on authorities? I say that without party prejudice. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that some sort of thoughtful, longer-term strategic approach to the whole subject is required, rather than a series of penalties and incentives?

Paddy Tipping: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not raising any party political issue. Under the last Conservative Government, revenue support grant fell by 7 per cent. Under the Labour Government, the amount of money going to local councils has increased by 25 per cent. That is one of the issues that is being discussed in the Chamber today with, I suppose, Thursday on hon. Members' minds. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in that responsibilities are placed on local councils, and it is not always entirely clear where the funding for those responsibilities is coming from. There is an amazing lack of transparency in the environmental and cultural block grant in support for local authorities. One has to be a magician to understand what goes into that pot and what needs to be paid out of it.
 The purpose of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is to say to the Minister gently that there will be a growing demand for variable charging in the long term. Having reviewed the international literature, I conclude that a strong case is beginning to pile up with implications for the UK. I put it no more strongly than that. It must be right. It is one of the emerging themes of government. It has been slow coming from the Treasury, but we need new green legislation. We also need taxation that takes into account what one pays for the pollution that one produces. 
 As householders, we all produce waste. I am not asking for the amendment to be accepted, but there is a strong argument for considering what would happen to domestic household waste if householders were rewarded for segregating their waste and for producing less of it. We would all be winners if we moved towards that situation. I hope that this afternoon's brief discussion has raised the issue's profile. I appreciate that the Minister might not be 
 able to make much progress on the matter at the moment, but in the long term this campaign will grow and will, I believe, eventually succeed.

Gregory Barker: It is interesting that the proposal to allow councils to experiment with charging regimes for waste collection was recommended by the strategy unit to provide a stick to promote recycling and waste minimisation by householders. The principle of the proposal chimes with the Tory outlook on the environment and waste control, in that it puts the onus on those who generate excessive waste to take personal responsibility for it and not to offload it on to the state, their fellow taxpayers or the community. In the argot of the waste sector, it is the ''polluter pays'' principle, and it would mean that councils could raise the necessary revenues to provide first-class recycling services that, unfortunately, many councils throughout the country do not provide or do not have the resources to provide. It would help drive the minimisation of waste and encourage recycling. That said, there is a very strong social dimension to this as well. It would inevitably be seen as an additional charge on households and on large families, who inevitably produce more waste. It could even cost them more, whatever clever formula is invented. There is also a very well grounded fear that it could lead to increased fly tipping to avoid charges. Fly tipping is something that we Conservatives have been particularly concerned with as an ill thought-through by-product of many of this Government's regulations, particularly those emanating from the European Union.
 Therefore, although I am not against charging in principle, I am firmly of the opinion that until we have a nationwide high-quality recycling service that allows people to separate their waste on their doorstep, we should not introduce this type of charging regime. 
 If it were possible for a householder to separate their waste for doorstep collection, I think the vast majority of people would be only too willing to comply. Polling evidence taken by the Environment Agency would support that view, in which nine out of 10 people in their sample said that they would be very willing to play their part in a doorstep recycling scheme. Ultimately, if there is no real objection to people being charged for residual waste, and if that proved necessary to persuade people to separate waste, then I would support that. However, we are simply not there yet, and a great deal more needs to be done by the Government to improve the current regime before we start talking about penalising individual householders with financial sticks. First, the Government have got to raise their game. I would point out to Labour Members that the Labour Party in Scotland has grasped the nettle, and have a commitment to introduce national kerbside collection. Perhaps they will start to make greater progress in Scotland than we are making in England. We are certainly lagging behind other countries in the United Kingdom. It would be very sad if England and 
 Wales started to lag behind other parts of the United Kingdom. 
 I hope that it will strengthen the Minister's position in a Government who are clearly disinterested in the environment issue. I hope that it will strengthen the Minister's hand in calling for the stronger measures that we would all like to see. However, until we have that first-class system of kerbside collection in England and Wales, I do not think that the time has come to countenance financially penalising householders.

John Hayes: I do not think that my hon. Friend is being entirely fair to the Minister or the Government. It is not that the Government is disinterested in environmental issues; the Prime Minister is disinterested in all domestic issues. One cannot single out the environment in that way. I do not think that the Prime Minister is prejudiced; he just does not like to concentrate on what he sees as parochial issues.
 We, on the other hand, do not have such an arrogant view of the world; we care about those things. Clearly, that is the case for those who moved the amendment, which I think is interesting. They have said that they are not going to press the issue, so I do not want to delay the Committee too long, but there is an important point that comes out of this. That serious point is that if we are to make extra demands on local authorities—rightly in my view—if we are to expect them to raise their game, we must be seen to be even-handed in the way that we support them in that process. 
 There is a valid argument about the relationship that will now develop between the Government and the relevant bodies that are empowered to deal with the matters that are in the Bill. We have talked at length about the change in the public sector, and about the change in the culture of local authorities. We have spoken this afternoon and before that about the partnership that needs to develop between those authorities that deal with collection and disposal. However, we have not talked a great deal about the relationship between Government and those people. That needs to be thought through. Perhaps there will be time to debate it during later stages of the Bill. This helpful amendment has given us the opportunity to focus on the matter. Just as there needs to be a balance in the relationship between disposal and collection authorities, there needs to be a balance between the carrot and the stick, between what we expect and demand and how we encourage and support. That is the spirit and tone of the amendment. It is useful that we have had the opportunity to debate it.

Michael Meacher: Again, we have had an interesting debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Southampton, Test on having displayed their usual feline dexterity in walking the tightrope between rebellion and loyalty. I suddenly got the message. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle says, the Government have been considering the possibility of household charging. That was proposed by the strategy unit report. It recommended that local authorities that wished to introduce household incentive schemes to help to reduce waste volumes and increase recycling should be allowed to do so. There are powerful reasons for it.
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned some serious arguments against it, and I shall come to them.
 The most powerful argument for it is waste minimisation. How does one encourage individual households to generate less waste? Minor prizes or incentives are not generally effective. However, this is a way of saying to people that if they create less waste it will cost them less. That is powerful. The council tax, which pays for councils to collect and deal with municipal waste, is flat rate. Whether a householder creates a little waste or a lot of it, he pays the same. That does not provide appropriate incentives. 
 The report ''Waste Not, Want Not'' listed a number of ways in which such incentives might be provided. They included council tax discounts for households that home compost, rewards or prizes for homes that recycle and variable charging schemes that replace the element of council tax that covers waste. I emphasise the word ''replace'' because I have had many letters about the matter. Nearly all suggest that it is a double whammy—that people will have to pay not only council tax but an additional one. It is not an additional tax. It is a substitute that is fairer between people. I shall cover the other objections shortly. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, local authorities might find the power to charge households for the collection of their waste useful in encouraging people to separate their waste before it is collected so that it can be recycled. That is another powerful incentive. With a suitable power, households would only be charged for residual waste collected, and that would provide them with an incentive both to separate and to minimise waste. I understand why it is attractive, and I find those arguments persuasive. I also understand why there is concern that at present households, as waste producers, are not sufficiently incentivised to reduce waste. I must draw attention to the fact that 17 countries already operate such schemes. It is not as though it is an untried precedent. 
 My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just announced that the Government do not consider a national tax on household waste collection appropriate; he has ruled it out. However, he also confirmed that we are still considering the possibility not of imposing a tax but of allowing local authorities to charge where it might help them to deliver on their recycling targets and to reduce landfill. It is a matter of record that many local authorities have voluntarily, at their own discretion, asked for the right to do that.

Gregory Barker: The Minister mentioned that countries already have such a system in operation. Can he tell the Committee how many of those 17 do not have a national kerbside collection for recyclables?

Michael Meacher: I cannot. I was about to say that there is a certain amount of further information that we need and that that is some of the material that we seek to collect. We consider that further work is needed before a decision can be taken on whether to extend the powers of local authorities in that way and to introduce pilot household charging schemes. Some of the issues that we will examine are those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They are practical issues,
 such as how we can ensure that low-income households are not penalised, and the costs and methods of administering such a charge.
 We also need to consider the risk that charging might increase fly tipping. It was only when I had been in my job for some while that I got used to the concept, which I originally found rather hilarious, of waste tourism. The idea is that if a charge is imposed on people, at 2 am the night before they will sneak out of their house with a couple of bags and dump them over the wall up the road. I do not believe that to be very likely, but the issue has been raised. 
 We would also need to ensure that the recycling infrastructure is in place, so that households can cut the amount of residual waste that they have to throw away. I agree with the comments that the hon. Gentleman made. 
 I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that we are examining the issue seriously. I have said constantly during the Committee proceedings that waste minimisation is at the top of the hierarchy. I would be the first to say that there is no point in making ministerial speeches about something unless one is going to deliver it. It is difficult to think of alternative mechanisms that can deliver it as well. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right to say that there are some issues that must be resolved first. 
 I am grateful for the spirit and persuasiveness with which my hon. Friends introduced the amendment. I note that they said that they would not press it to a vote, but I hope that they are persuaded that the Government are taking it seriously.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 20, in 
clause 31, page 20, line 32, at end insert— 
 '(4B) Before exercising its power to include requirements about separation in directions under subsection (4)(a) above, a waste disposal authority shall consult the waste collection authorities within its area. 
 (4C) In exercising its power to include requirements about separation in directions under subsection (4)(a) above, a waste disposal authority shall have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that power. 
 (4D) A waste disposal authority which includes requirements about separation in directions given under subsection (4)(a) above shall notify the waste collection authorities to which the directions are given of its reasons for including the requirements.''.'.
 No. 21, in 
clause 31, page 20, line 32, at end insert— 
 '( ) After section 52 there is inserted— 
 ''52A Payments for delivering waste preseparated 
 (1) A waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority shall pay to a waste collection authority within its area such amounts as are needed to ensure that the collection authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with any separation requirements. 
 (2) A waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority may pay to a waste collection authority within its area— 
 (a) which performs its duty under section 48(1) above by delivering waste in a state of separation, but 
 (b) which is not subject to any separation requirements as respects the delivery of that waste, 
 contributions of such amounts as the disposal authority may determine towards expenditure of the collection authority that is attributable to its delivering the waste in that state. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how amounts to be paid under subsection (1) above are to be determined. 
 (4) Regulations under subsection (3) above may include provision for amounts to be less than they would otherwise be (or to be nil) if conditions specified in the regulations are not satisfied. 
 (5) Any question arising under subsection (1) above shall, in default of agreement between the paying and receiving authorities, be determined by arbitration. 
 (6) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority shall supply the waste disposal authority for its area with such information as the disposal authority may reasonably require— 
 (a) for the purpose of determining amounts under this section, or 
 (b) for the purpose of estimating any amounts that would fall to be determined under this section were the collection authority to be subject to particular separation requirements. 
 (7) In this section ''separation requirements'', in relation to a waste collection authority, means requirements about separation included in directions given to it under section 51(4)(a) above.''.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
 Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5 - Strategies for incineration: England

'.—(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Scottish Ministers, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question according negatived.New clause 21Strategies for meeting the End ofLife Vehicle Directive: England

New clause 21 - Strategies for meeting the End of

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.
(2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.—[Norman Baker.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—Strategies for meeting the End of Life Vehicle Directive: Scotland—
'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.
(2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.
(4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 23—Strategies for meeting the End of Life Vehicle Directive: Wales—
'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.
(2) The National Assembly for Wales will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 24—Strategies for meeting the End of Life Vehicle Directive: Northern Ireland—
'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.
(2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.
New clause 25—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: England—
'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.
(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London.
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 26—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: Scotland—
'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.
(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.
(3) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 27—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: Wales—
'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.
(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Assembly must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(3) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 28—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: Northern Ireland—
'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.
(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Department must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(3) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.
New clause 31—Annual report to Parliament—
'The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the progress made towards encouraging and requiring the producers and manufacturers of goods and products to use processes and material that minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products.'.
New clause 37—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: England—
'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.
(2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 38—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Scotland—
'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.
(2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.
(4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 39—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Wales—
'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.
(2) The National Assembly for Wales will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 40—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Northern Ireland—
'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.
(2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.
New clause 41—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: England—
'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.
(2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 42—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Scotland—
'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.
(2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the 
recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.
(4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 43—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Wales—
'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.
(2) The National Assembly of Wales will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate.
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State.
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the Department of the Environment.'.
New clause 44—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Northern Ireland—
'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.
(2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.
(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—
(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate.
(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and
(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.
(4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).
(5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—
(a) the Secretary of State.
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.
Norman Baker: It is absolutely imperative that when new directives are emerging from Brussels we examine the implications and make our representations as effectively and as early as possible. It is no good attempting to object when the debate is all over bar the shouting. I hope that the Minister agrees with that, because that is what the Secretary of State said in her speech to Water UK on 2 May 2002.
I mention that point because the Government's history of anticipating directives, implementing them and conforming with them has not been of the best. I am not trying to make a political point; I draw attention to the need to improve the way in which we approach EU directives. The Secretary of State also said that we have been forced to accept judgments and that we have under-implemented directives. She said that the lesson for the future was clear, and that we must engage in the discussion from the first, be more certain of what our commitments mean and play a full part in negotiating new directives. I entirely agree.
Our history has not been brilliant in that respect—I mention the word ''fridges'' but without expanding too much on it. The more general problem is that Parliament has not anticipated or scrutinised European legislation properly, although the former Leader of the House had been considering that issue. That has been a problem with environment legislation, especially waste legislation.
The Minister may know that a report in 2002 by the director of the European Commission directorate-general for the environment to members of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament indicated that the United Kingdom was in breach, through infringement, of more EU environmental directives than any of the other 16 member states. It said that 32 letters of warning had been sent, and that the Government had not properly responded, on matters as diverse as the labelling of dangerous substances, the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, the protection of the health of workers and the general public against dangers arising from ionising radiation, the quality of water intended for human consumption, and so on.
New clauses 25 to 28 would require the Government to have a strategy for dealing with EU waste directives—limited to cover only waste, which the Minister is doubtless pleased about, but not related 
to the EU landfill directive, which he is probably less pleased about. We need to anticipate what is coming down the line. I hope that the Minister accepts that we need to consider such matters rather more carefully. Those new clauses suggest a strategy for meeting EU waste directives, which would improve matters should the Government choose to accept them.
New clauses 21 to 24 deal with one waste stream that has not been dealt with effectively. Fridges were one example of that; abandoned cars are another. The EU end of life vehicles directive requires that 95 per cent. of scrap from vehicles is recycled by 2015, with the chemicals, gases and non-biodegradable parts being removed for dismantling at approved sites. It is a good directive, and I suspect that we are all in favour of it; but are we ready for it, and would the sort of strategy that I propose in other new clauses help?
I know from a ministerial answer given on 4 March 2003 that there were 238,000 abandoned vehicles in 2000–01. I calculate that one could fill the M25 more than once if all those abandoned vehicles were lined up there—including the new extra lanes that the Government are now having built. Why do we have such a huge number of abandoned vehicles every year? Partly because this country has implemented the EU directive by making a vehicle's final owner responsible for disposing of it. That is nonsensical in financial or common-sense terms: the average cost of disposing of a vehicle is £65, and that burden falls on the person who has it at the end of its life, when it is of little or no value. Surely it would be more sensible to create a system that enabled vehicles to be dealt with at the end of their life in a way that guaranteed that they would not be abandoned or burned out—20 per cent. of vehicles are burned out.
The present system is very costly: in 2000, the collection and disposal of all abandoned cars, according to my estimates, came to almost £23 million. In the same year, the cost of dealing with 81,612 burned-out cars was, according to the Home Office, £420 million. Those things do not come cheap. The Home Office report, ''The Economic Costs of Fire'' puts the cost of a single vehicle fire at £5,100. That means that the 70,000 abandoned vehicles set on fire in 2000 cost £357 million. I suspect that we shall see an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles on our roads, in our fields, and anywhere else where they can be placed.
There is a disused chalk pit outside Lewes. The last time I was there, it had 27 burned-out vehicles in it—it was a scene from ''Mad Max III''—a direct consequence of the failure to implement properly end of life vehicles directive.
The Minister might ask what the alternatives are. I can suggest three. One is a deposit scheme, similar to that which applies to bottles of beer from Harvey's of Lewes, which I referred to before. I have not forgotten my promise to bring the Minister a bottle of Harvey's beer. A person who buys a new car would pay a deposit, possibly including an element of bounty, which could be passed down to successive owners. The last could use the value of the deposit to pay for disposal.
The second option would be for an element of vehicle excise duty to be put into a fund and set aside for the collection of abandoned vehicles. People would pay their road tax every year. When they had finished with a car, they could ring the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, or whoever was responsible, and ask for it to be taken away. The road tax fund would cover that. The third option, which we are suggesting in the new clauses, is that the manufacturers could bear the cost; it could be reflected in the cost price of the vehicle. From 2008 onwards, the problem might be solved because manufacturers will be geared up to do that. However, there is a need for manufacturers—or someone—to deal with the problem now.
Those are my three suggestions for the short term. However, unless there is a change of Government policy, the mountains of fridges that are now disappearing will be joined by mountains of cars, fly-tipped all over the country and burned out, because the economic signals are wrong and the onus is on the last owner. The Government must change their policy now or, three or four years down the road, there will be a big mess. It is pointless to say that it will all be sorted out in 2008. I want to prevent the problem from continuing for the next five years; that is what the new clauses are designed to do.
Lastly, I support the Conservatives' new clauses in the grouping. New clause 31, tabled by the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Bexhill and Battle, seeks to introduce an annual report to be made to Parliament. While I am happy with the concept, the terms of the report are narrowly drawn; they should be wider. However, if pushed, we would support it.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes some sensible points about the increasing nuisance of vehicles that are abandoned across the country. Those of us who represent very rural constituencies find it especially galling that the cars that we find dumped along the roadside and in dykes and ditches in glorious Fenland, for example, do not originate from our area but are from surrounding towns and cities. They are very often hard to remove. At this very moment, there are several sites in my constituency with cars that have been dumped there for some time. It seems appropriate to consider these matters in the context of this discussion.
I have some doubt as to whether the hon. Gentleman's solution to that problem, as embodied in the new clause, is the right one. Do not misunderstand me: it is right that producers and manufacturers have a responsibility in this regard. However, I am not entirely sure that I would go along with the new clause in its current form. I accept that it has been tabled to open up the debate. I am sure that it is probing in a sense, although I am not sure that a new clause can ever be probing. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled it and why he has, quite properly, drawn the Committee's attention to it. However, for the purpose of opening up the discussion, it would be more valuable to ask the Minister to consider these matters more fully and to come back to the House than to provide a ready-made solution. This is a very complex area for all sorts of 
reasons, not least because of the distribution chain and the volume of products involved, and we need to give it some thought. I put it no more strongly than that. It is appropriate to discuss it.
I take it that now is the time to discuss the other new clauses in the group, Mr. Amess. I believe that new clause 31 is straightforward. The hon. Member for Lewes described it as tightly drawn, or narrow or limited, but ''straightforward'' is a better way of describing it. It makes it clear that Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the progress that we make with manufacturers and producers in relation to the excessive amounts of packaging that are sadly becoming the norm, as you will know, Mr. Amess. You will feel just as strongly as I do, as you always feel as strongly about your constituents' interests in Essex as I do about mine in Lincolnshire. So much of that packaging finds its way into fly tips or into the traditional waste stream, and it is then difficult to deal with. For the most part, that is unnecessary.
A retailer in my constituency told me that he recalled that only a decade or two ago, furniture was frequently delivered with minimal amounts of packaging. When we move house, we cover our furniture in blankets and rope it to stop it moving about and being damaged. In that way, furniture was regularly delivered from the retailer to people's homes. These days, it is delivered with plastic, polystyrene, wood, wire, string and every sort of packaging imaginable, much of which the householder finds it most difficult to get rid of because of its size.
Dealing with furniture is not like dealing with food products, bad enough though they are. We debated those at great length earlier in our consideration of the Bill. The sheer size of the packaging makes it hard to dispose of it. I suspect that we all, as members of the Committee and as householders, have been in the same situation. That is just one example of where producers have changed the whole nature of waste—its style and volume. It is important, as new clause 31 suggests, that we scrutinise that as a Parliament, and that it is brought to our attention so that we can discuss it in order to serve our constituents effectively.
New clauses 37 to 44 deal with another crucial area—electric and electronic equipment waste. We are all aware of the enormous challenge that the EU directives have posed in this respect to householders and local authorities. I imagine that few of us have not over the past year or two had to dispose of a piece of electronic equipment such as a television, an old fridge or washing machine. The nuisance of those things hanging around and the chances of their finding their way into the wrong kind of waste stream—or simply a stream—are growing as obligations become greater.
We need a clearly defined strategy for dealing with that problem. The EU directive goes some way towards marking out that strategy, but the new clause encourages consultation and co-operation. In that sense it would help to achieve our shared objectives of dealing with electronic waste in an appropriate and sensible way. Finally, we seek to stiffen the provisions on packaging waste in new clauses 41 to 44.
I see that the Minister is about to intervene. For the sake of brevity and in view of the stage that we have reached in our proceedings, perhaps he will wait until he responds to the debate. Hon. Members may wish to make long speeches at the end of the sitting congratulating everyone and thanking you, of course, Mr. Amess.
There are so many new clauses simply because each deals with either electronic waste or packaging waste in each of the different parts of the United Kingdom. None of them is in any way at odds with what we have been discussing. They are all in balance, to use the term of the afternoon, and in harmony with what we are all trying to achieve. They simply draw particular attention to those areas that I feel require the fullest possible consultation, proper scrutiny and firm action. I hope that the Minister will agree that they might be helpful in that regard.
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend has spoken at length and persuasively about all the new clauses so I shall be brief. I fully endorse his comments. I simply want to speak to new clause 31 as it stands in my name. It states:
''The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the progress made towards encouraging and requiring the producers and manufacturers of goods and products to use processes and material that minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products.''
It is a simple new clause. The hon. Member for Lewes may think that it is narrowly drawn. We do not need a big stick in the first instance; we need to excite public interest and to shine the spotlight of media attention. We need to create a debate in this place on that often overlooked part of the waste hierarchy, the producer's responsibility not to create so much of the blooming stuff in the first place. We must tap into that British quality of inventiveness and our excellence in pioneering new processes and technologies of which we are rightly proud.
Mr. Hayes: I merely intervene to stop my hon. Friend getting too worked up. His patriotic zeal was getting the better of him. I do not blame him for that. I want to regale him with a story about electronic equipment that I think will be helpful. A week or so ago my wife left three Hoovers outside our house to be collected by the collection authority. When she went to bed that night she noticed that one had disappeared. In the morning a second one had gone and before the waste collection authorities could arrive in the afternoon the third had gone too. That is recycling at its very peak. Whether they are being used or what they are doing, I neither know nor care. I am pretty certain that they have gone to good homes.
Gregory Barker: The Tory shadow Cabinet is famous for the nicknames of its Front Bench spokesmen. We have a ''Two Brains'' and now we have a ''Three Hoovers''. The mind boggles at the thought of a residence so vast that it requires three machines to clean it.
As I was saying, if only we could do more to shine the spotlight of media attention and public debate on these processes and innovations and encourage more of our great minds to apply themselves to the challenges of minimisation, we would be doing a great service. It would be a relatively low-cost measure to publish an annual report. The Government are never shy about publishing more and more bumf, so if they published a report to encourage this area of endeavour, that would meet with universal acclamation.
Mr. Meacher: The new clauses run to about a dozen pages, but they make one central point: that this country should be better prepared in respect of EU legislation. I agree.
I will say where we stand on the major issues that have been raised. The situation is a little better than has been suggested by some. New clauses 41 to 44 would require each country in the UK to have a strategy to meet the packaging and packaging waste directive. The new clauses are unnecessary because the requirements of the packaging directive have already been transposed into UK law through the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. Those require certain businesses to ensure that specified tonnages of recovery and recycling of packaging waste are carried out. The regulations create a cost incentive for business to reduce the amount of packaging that it uses, because the obligations are based on the tonnage of packaging that a business handles in a given year. That is already working; we are delivering.
The obligations took effect in 1998, and the recycling of packaging waste increased from 27 to 42 per cent. in 2001. I do not have the latest figures for 2002. The amount of packaging waste going to landfill fell from 6.9 million tonnes in 1998 to 4.8 million tonnes in 2001. I expect to see greater reductions than we have seen so far once the higher recycling targets in the next directive are in place. There is talk—that is what it is at the moment—about a recycling target of 60 to 65 per cent. operating in 2006, 2007 or 2008.
We have therefore begun to deliver, although I am the first to say that we should not be complacent. I receive many letters from aggravated and disgruntled constituents, sent via their Member of Parliament, about the amount of packaging waste. That is contrary to the impression given by the figures, but I suspect that it reflects the experience at the supermarket checkout, where people get not one bag, but two or three. I accept that we must do more to satisfy the public about minimising packaging waste, so I have asked the Advisory Committee on Packaging to provide me with proposals on that issue to feed into the work that my Department is doing on ways to achieve more minimisation and reuse of packaging.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister was coming to the point on which I wanted to intervene, and helpfully so. We have no doubt about the improvements in recycling. He wants to reach a better destination, but as he says we have made a start on the journey. We are really concerned about minimising packaging waste in the first place. New clause 31 is not about a report on how much is recycled, but about how much is produced. I 
would be interested if the Minister had an answer now to this question. Against the background of the improved recycling figure, has he any empirical data on the amount of packaging waste that is produced? Is the trend getting better, getting worse or staying the same?
Mr. Meacher: I am not certain of the answer to that question, but I will certainly see that the hon. Gentleman receives it. Over the past five years or so, packaging manufacturers have responded to the Government's pressure on them to produce packaging that is more appropriate for the purpose—that is, smaller cartons or boxes and thinner glass containers to reduce the quantity as well as the weight and therefore the cost to the producer of that type of packaging. That has certainly happened, and markedly so, but I say to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that it can have perverse results. I said earlier in Committee that I am in favour of a deposit and return system. However, one of the problems with that is that glass containers have been thinned to such a degree that, in some cases, they will not withstand scrubbing with caustic soda. That is a problem if we are going to have a reuse policy, as opposed to the current plan, which is to ensure that packaging is reduced in size. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: I will give way, but I am getting a little concerned.
Norman Baker: We are speaking to my amendments. The Minister will know that earlier in the Committee's discussions we talked about waste from fast food restaurants. After that discussion, I had a meeting with representatives of McDonalds at which they confessed that in other countries, including Germany, they provided their hamburgers in cartons made from card and other recyclable materials, instead of polystyrene. Why is it that they are able to get away with that practice here, and not in Germany?
Mr. Meacher: There is no reason for that. I am very keen to pursue that point. I had a meeting with fast food companies, particularly about the waste and litter that is generated around their stores and shops. I sought to get a code of practice put in place to reduce that. I accept that the containers could be changed in order to ensure that they are recyclable. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is a matter that I will be happy to pursue.
I turn to end-of-life vehicles, which the hon. Member for Lewes addressed. This is, of course, an important directive, and one that we are determined to implement properly for manufacturers, treatment industries and consumers. We are already well on the way to transposing the directive. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, it becomes operative in 2007, when producer responsibility on the car manufacturer kicks in. We are currently consulting on draft regulations to implement a number of articles in the directive. The responses to that consultation paper are due back on 6 June. We are in the middle of that consultation. There will be further consultation in due course on draft regulations covering the remaining articles in the 
directive, including those relating to end-of-life vehicle recovery and reuse targets.
No decision has yet been reached on the design of the system for paying the cost of recycling vehicles at the end of their life. At the moment, attention is focused on what might be called an ''own marque'' approach to free take-back. That is the manufacturers' preferred option, and in line with the spirit of the new clauses, it would mean that manufacturers take responsibility for their own brand of end-of-life vehicles.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the effects of burned-out vehicles and abandoned vehicles, which certainly has been a widespread scourge over the last couple of years. We did, however, on 10 April 2002, introduce regulations that said that local authorities or the police could remove a vehicle of no value within 24 hours and destroy it. Where the vehicle had some value, it would be removed within seven days. My understanding is that, particularly with projects such as Operation Cubitt, which worked very successfully in Kent, Newham and the south-east, there has been a very large removal of abandoned vehicles. However, it still remains a problem.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the question of how one effects payment up until 2007 is an issue; who is responsible for that £50 or £60? We have used the same policy as in France and Germany, of placing the cost on the last user, but I am not saying that that is a justification. However, I recognise that there are serious problems in enhancing abandonment policy. We have tried to deal with that in other ways. The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that there must be responsibility, either through a levy—he mentioned a road fund levy as one option—or by placing a responsibility directly on to the producer. The directive favours the latter approach.
New clauses 37 to 40 on the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive would also require that regulations are made to provide that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling at the end of its life.
New clauses 37 to 40 on the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive would also require regulations to provide that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling at the end of a product's life. We think that that is right, and we already have an implementation strategy for the directive. A broad-brush discussion paper on the directive was published on 28 March, and responses are due back by 30 May. It is the first phase of a three-stage consultation process—here we go again—as a more detailed consultation is due to be published in the autumn and a further consultation paper on the draft regulations in spring 2004.
New clauses 25 to 28, the final set, require that each area of the United Kingdom has a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU directives. That is obviously right, and that is exactly the strategy that we are adopting. [Interruption.] The hon. 
Gentleman may express his reservations. As someone kindly said recently, when my heart is opened up, it will say ''fridges'' on it in the way that Mary had ''Calais'' on hers.
The problem with the fridges arose, as I never cease saying, because the Commission did not give us the relevant information until it was far too late. A regulation became operative throughout the EU on a particular day seven months before we had to implement it, and before we had the infrastructure in place. That was not our fault, but in this case, we have had several years to prepare. Although the WEEE directive does not come into force until September 2004, a clear strategy is in place, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that after what happened, the measures are being given a great deal of attention.
I make the point that the directives are not imposed by Europe. There is an impression that the continent is somehow imposing changes on the poor little UK, when in fact we are a leading member of the Council. We do not agree to the measures unless we believe they are right—and I believe that they are right—and the time scales, mechanisms and procedures for implementation are acceptable. We believe that these measures are right and acceptable. There is an established practice for consultation among Whitehall Departments, devolved Administrations, local government and industry to consider options for implementation, and I believe that it works. It helps to ensure that directives are transposed accurately and in the most appropriate way for the UK.
My final point is about new clause 31, which would require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on progress towards encouraging and requiring producers and manufacturers to minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products. I agree with that thrust, but annual reports are already made to industry and others by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the progress of the requirements in the packaging regulations. The packaging, ELV and WEEE directives require the UK to report to the Commission on their implementation. We also publicise initiatives on waste, such as the existing voluntary producer-responsibility agreement with newspaper publishers, which encourages them to recycle their product. As I already mentioned, we are discussing similar agreements with producers of junk mail and magazines.
In other words, the Government collect the information required in the new clause, and it is made available. The new clause adds only that there should be a formal report to Parliament, which would involve more printing and work by officials when the information is already available and can be used if the official Opposition or other parties want to have a debate. That is adequate; the figures are monitored and the Government can be held to account on the basis of the information collected.
I hope that, with that lengthy explanation, hon. Members will be content not to press the new clauses further. I take the message, and the Government reinforce it—
Mr. Hayes rose—
Mr. Meacher: Before the peroration, I will give way.
Mr. Hayes: The key points are that the new clauses would restore the emphasis on producer responsibility. The Bill is about recycling, reuse and the responsible use of waste, but I emphasise again, as I reach the end of my remarks on these important provisions—[Interruption.] I do apologise, Mr. Amess—that may have been a call from McDonald's hamburgers, although I hope not. I emphasise again that unless we deal with the problem at source, all our efforts may come to naught, which is why the amendment is producer-oriented.
Finally, the large-scale waste that I described—electrical equipment and large-scale packaging—is very hard for householders and quite hard for collection authorities to deal with. That is a problem in small rural communities. It was mentioned to me when I visited Gedney recently, and I said that I would raise the matter with the Minister in this Committee. I hope that he will focus on that large-scale waste, which includes plastics such as polystyrenes.
Mr. Meacher: That point is fair, and the hon. Gentleman can faithfully and honestly say to his constituents that he has raised it—they can make sure that he has done so. We are making a great deal of progress in reducing both the amount of packaging that goes to landfill and the quantities that are used. However, I would be the first to say that we have not satisfied the public and that we need a step change in the handling of packaging in this country. I sympathise with the views of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn on the basis of the Government's acceptance of the general point that underlies the debate.
Norman Baker: On the basis of good will and the Government's acceptance that what we said was, by and large, accurate, and that they should do something about it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.New clause 30Zero waste strategy

New clause 30 - Zero waste strategy

'(1) The Secretary of State shall—
(a) within twelve months put before Parliament a strategy to deliver a year on year decrease in the volume of waste sent to landfill that shall be commensurate with statutory reductions in the weight and volume of waste sent to landfill as required by Clause One; and
(b) report to Parliament as to progress by area, every twelve months thereafter and that report shall detail the amount by both weight and volume.
(2) The strategy to decrease the volume of waste sent to landfill shall ensure that the volume of waste sent to landfill shall be reduced according to a formula, which the Secretary of State shall specify, which accurately measures the significance of waste by volume against waste by weight.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 31Annual report to Parliament

New clause 31 - Annual report to Parliament

'The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the progress made towards encouraging and requiring the producers and manufacturers of goods and products to use processes and material that minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 32Moratorium on new municipal incinerators

New clause 32 - Moratorium on new municipal incinerators

'The Secretary of State shall introduce a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until— 
 (a) each responsible local authority, either directly or indirectly by cooperation with other stakeholders, can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where it is economically viable; 
 (b) all local waste management strategies conform to standardised national waste management criteria, which will be specified by the Secretary of State, which can be met through various ways according to local conditions, which should ensure: 
 (i) extraction or recycling of metal; 
 (ii) removal of organic and other green waste to produce compost; 
 (iii) recycling of paper and card; 
 (iv) recycling of wood; 
 (v) recycling of colour separated glass, or, where colour separation is impossible, recycling as cullet for road building etc.; 
 (vi) recycling of certain plastics; 
 (vii) minimal transportation of waste to keep traffic and pollution levels down; 
 (viii) recovery of energy from those forms of waste which it is economically nonviable to recycle, given the inferior quality of the recyclate; 
 (ix) lower energy costs to the locality for energy supply from the local recycling plant—probably only viable with new developments; 
 (x) high quality and regular monitoring of the facility to ensure continued safety to the local community; and 
 (c) the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 33Strategies for radioactive waste in respect of landfill: England

New clause 33 - Strategies for radioactive waste in

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for ensuring that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (2) The Secretary of State will set out in regulations a requirement upon local authorities that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Scottish Ministers, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 34—Strategies for radioactive waste in respect of landfill: Scotland— 
'(1) The Scottish Ministers must develop a strategy for ensuring that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (2) The Scottish Ministers will set out in regulations a requirement upon local government that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate. 
 (4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.
 New clause 35—Strategies for radioactive waste in respect of landfill: Wales— 
'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must develop a strategy for ensuring that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (2) The National Assembly for Wales will set out in regulations a requirement upon local government that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.
 New clause 36—Strategies for radioactive waste in respect of landfill: Northern Ireland— 
'(1) The Department of the Environment must develop a strategy for ensuring that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (2) The Department of the Environment will set out in regulations a requirement upon local government that from 1st January 2005 no radioactive waste is sent to landfill sites and is disposed of at a central designated site. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

Norman Baker: I am always amazed by Members' ability to talk for exactly the time available, no matter how much has been allocated; it is Parkinson's law of Parliament.
 I shall do the Minister a favour. I know that he is very concerned about radioactive waste, and I present him with an opportunity to accept a new clause. The Minister told us earlier that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was walking a tightrope between rebellion and loyalty. The Minister is the greatest exponent of that feat, and I pay tribute to him for it. He is sound on radioactive matters, and I hope that he will give the new clause a fair wind. 
 The Minister will know that the disposal of radioactive waste is dealt with in separate legislation. My concern is that it is outside the proper consideration of environmental matters, and it should be considered as part of the waste stream, not as something separate. He will also know that low-level radioactive waste is disposed of at numerous landfill sites, including one at Beddingham in my constituency. He will not be surprised to hear that there is a landfill site there; after all, it is in an area of outstanding natural beauty—an obvious place for a landfill site, and for the county council's incinerator, which is to be installed. That landfill site was unlined, and it is above a water table. 
 We have been rather cavalier in dealing with such matters, and we should be rather more careful. The new clause suggests a central location for the disposal of low-level radioactive material, and the subsequent monitoring of possible leaching into the water supply. Drigg could clearly be that location under the present circumstances; the Environment Agency and others are fully aware of it, and some monitoring is obviously going on there—far more than at Beddingham—into possible leaching into the water supply. 
 The Minister is generous with his parliamentary answers; they are always worth citing. However, the next parliamentary answer that I shall quote is from his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for 
 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). In answer to a question from me about an assessment by DEFRA or the Environment Agency of the risk to river water quality from discharges of radioactive waste, he said: 
''The agency has not carried out any assessments of risks to river quality from sites at which radioactive waste is stored.''
 No assessment at all—that is frightening and rather worrying. In answer to my next question, the Under-Secretary said: 
''There are no directives or regulations relating specifically to discharges to rivers from radioactive waste storage sites''.—[Official Report, 12 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 457–458W.]
 The matter has not been given proper consideration. 
 When I was last in Brussels, I met Marianne Klingbeil, who has a function in the directorate-general for the environment on waste and enforcement. She told me that there were no new developments in the pipeline to tackle radioactive waste landfill. All questions on co-disposal have bypassed radioactive material because it is being dealt with—or not dealt with—separately from normal waste. It would therefore seem that the general measures being implemented across the EU to improve environmental protection and to deal with the waste stream are not being applied in the same way to radioactive waste. That seems to have been left behind in the two criteria. Marianne Klingbeil reported that a directive on radioactive material is being prepared by the EU, but that it will not cover landfill sites and radioactive disposal at landfill sites. 
 I raise the issue by means of the new clause, which has merits in its own right. We should use the Bill as an opportunity to deal with that element of the waste stream, as we should deal with many issues in addition to the narrow interpretation that we have been given. I do not wish to overplay the matter; there are not major problems out there, but there is the potential problem of radioactive waste seeping into water supplies from landfill sites. The way to deal with that is to tighten up controls and to have one central site for disposal, which can be monitored. The parliamentary answer that I referred to said that there had been monitoring by the Environment Agency at Drigg. Not only had it taken place, but British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. was required to submit radiological assessments for the site. The agency was not satisfied and subsequently carried out an independent appraisal of it. I am reasonably confident that measures are in place at Drigg to deal with the matter properly. I am not confident that the same rigorous approach applies to other landfill sites in which radioactive waste is disposed of.

Michael Meacher: I shall try to set aside the interesting point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I admire his skill in raising the matter of radioactive waste; it is rather a long way from biodegradable municipal waste, which we are discussing. However, the Bill is about waste, and I shall take his point at face value. Radioactive waste is divided into four categories: high, intermediate, low and very low-level waste. Only very low-level waste is sent to local authority or
 commercially operated landfill sites. In addition, fewer than 10 specified landfill sites in England—apparently one of them is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—have, under the terms of authorisations from the Environment Agency, specified controlled burial conditions to dispose of radioactive waste from named sites that might have higher activity levels than the waste sent to general landfill sites. That is a long-established process and the Government have no knowledge of any problems associated with that type of disposal. Some of the waste is so lightly contaminated that its radioactivity is barely distinguishable from background levels and there is no risk either to the workers at the landfill sites or to the general public. Typically, the waste consists of ash from incinerators that have authorisation to incinerate radioactive waste or lightly contaminated material from hospitals.
 Although the amendments would apply only to very low-level radioactive waste, the implications for other types of radioactive waste would be far reaching. Any radioactive waste that is above the levels appropriate for disposal at landfill sites is either disposed of at the BNFL facility at Drigg near Sellafield, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, or safely stored at nuclear licensed sites. 
 From an environmental perspective, the Environment Agency is satisfied that the existing approach—that very low-level waste should go to landfill sites subject to appropriate regulation—is correct. The agency's view, which I share, is that concentrating all such waste in a single site would not be appropriate from an environmental perspective. The hon. Gentleman has made himself the godfather of the proximity principle and this is one issue to which he might apply it. 
 A central facility for very low-level radioactive waste would be much more expensive and would involve transporting waste over long distances. Those costs would have to be passed on to the generators of the waste, and that is likely to bear heavily on the national health service—its radioactive waste is one of the most substantial components of the material currently disposed of at landfill sites. 
 I believe that this is a right and proper policy. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular concerns, I suggest that he writes to me. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Norman Baker: I will withdraw the amendment in the spirit of good will, given that it is 10 minutes to 5. The Minister appears to be advocating a ''dilute and disperse'' policy for radioactive waste. I thought that that concept was abandoned 10, if not 20 years ago, so I am slightly concerned that it is still hanging around in the Government's approach to such matters.
 It is difficult to argue simultaneously that the national health service would encourage huge costs at a central site and that the disposal of such waste would not be particularly significant. Either there is not much waste, in which case the risk of it accumulating in towns is low and it could be disposed of locally, or a significant amount is being disposed of near local hospitals, in which case there is 
 an accumulation that concerns me. The Minister takes a slightly illogical line. I have concerns about Beddingham that I shall deal with separately, but, having heard the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 45 - Directions to waste disposal authorities

'(1) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. 
 (2) Any waste disposal authority which receives such a direction shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure it is complied with within 12 months of the issuing of the direction. 
 (3) A waste collection authority issuing a direction under subsection (1) above shall pay to a waste disposal authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the disposal authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with the direction.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. Clause 34Pollution regulations: emissions trading schemes

Clause 34 - Pollution regulations: emissions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paddy Tipping: It would be remiss to talk about the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill without mentioning part 2 of the Bill, which is about emissions trading. I draw the Minister's attention to my constituency interest: coal-mine methane, with which he is well connected and which could be covered by emissions trading. I say gently to the Minister that the White Paper that was published in February this year did nothing for the coal-mine methane industry. That industry is on its knees in the UK and is relocating to other parts of the European Union. Unless we come forward with some new initiatives and new thinking, a win-win situation—converting obnoxious material into a new source of energy—will be lost to this country.

Michael Meacher: I am aware of that issue. I recently saw the chief executive of the Association of Coal Mine Methane Operators, as well as Lord Jenkins from another place. The Government are concerned
 and motivated to try to ensure that methane extraction is one of the ways in which we can meet our CO2 targets. However, I tell my hon. Friend that the problem is that there is no internationally recognised way of formulating the baselines against which one can determine how much of an increase in coal-mine methane extraction there has been. Until we set down such baselines the international authorities in the United Nations will not recognise an increase in methane extraction as a valid contribution to our Kyoto targets and we shall not obtain the benefit of that. However, we have put in place a two-year research project—I fear that that is rather long—that we believe will be adequate to establish those baselines. Methodologically, we shall then be able to include coal-mine methane extraction within the Kyoto targets. I know that the association is also concerned about incorporation within the renewables obligation. That is a wider issue, which I would be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend.

Bill Wiggin: As I understand it, the scheme set up by part 2 allows for emissions trading. It does not seem to set out the structure that enables the trading to take place. Can the Minister tell me how the scheme will be universally applied across the UK? I suspect that the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish schemes will differ from that in England. I have a trading background and one of the fundamental rules in that environment is to let everyone know what is going on so that they can trade with one another fairly and equally. Time is short, but I hope that the Minister will say a few words—

Michael Meacher: I will say a very few words. All that the Bill does is to establish the penalty system relating to failure or the breaching of requirements under the emissions trading scheme. It does not establish the scheme's parameters. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it has already been in place for at least a year and there has been one round of trading. The penalty system requires a statutory authority in order to be levied. That is all that the Bill provides. There is already a satisfactory system that includes trading transparency, to which he has referred.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 35 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Short title

Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 38, page 23, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
 The amendment simply removes the privilege amendment inserted in another place to secure the right of this House to consider measures that might increase public expenditure. Given the hour, I shall not delay the Committee by setting out the amount by which we have increased expenditure on waste management, through the environmental, protective and cultural services, the challenge fund or the private finance initiative. That is the purpose of the amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

John Hayes: I shall speak for one minute, which will leave one minute for the Minister and no time for the hon. Member for Lewes. This has been a useful, enjoyable and productive Committee. The contributions from hon. Members of all parties have been good. I speak for the hon. Member for Lewes as well as for myself as the representative of the official Opposition party. I hope that you will agree, Mr. Amess, that we have conducted our affairs properly. We have been delighted to be chaired by you, in your usual benign and sagacious way, and your colleagues who have shared the Chair. Chairman Mao said that waste is a very great crime, and Confucius said:
''Virtue is more to man than either water or fire. I have seen men die from treading on water and fire, but I have never seen a man die from treading the course of virtue.''
 Finally, hypothecation is a seventeenth century word drawn from the mediaeval Latin, not a creation of the Liberal Democrats. On that happy note—a note of virtue, good grace and courtesy—I am delighted to end my involvement with the environment once and for all.

Michael Meacher: Since I probably have less than 30 seconds, I shall not reiterate all those sentiments, but it has been a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their patience, and the Opposition and the Liberal party on the quality of their contributions, which have been outstanding. We
 have had a fascinating time. As we went along, I have learned about plastic bags hidden in kitchen drawers, the train journeys of the hon. Member for Lewes and the weekends of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), as well as learning about waste in Denmark, and the trip of Environmental Audit Committee—and, indeed, the difference between symmetry and balance.
 The only thing that I was concerned about was the more controversial headlines that threatened ''Meacher murders muckrakers'' and a number of other sallies. It has been an excellent Committee. I am very grateful to everyone. I have learned a lot. I think that we have unanimity and a real spirit to carry the Bill forward. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Amess, for your charming, friendly and inspiring leadership.

David Amess: On behalf of my colleagues Anne Begg and Win Griffiths, I thank the Committee for the way in which it extended its courtesy to us, and I congratulate hon. Members on the way that they have conducted themselves throughout our proceedings. In every sense, it has been a model Committee. I wish to thank the Committee ushers, those who report our proceedings and those who advise us for their hard work. Last, but not least, I thank our Clerk for his wisdom, without which wise counsels would not have prevailed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at one minute past Five o'clock.